On February 28, 2020 10:04 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx>; git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > rcdailey.lists@xxxxxxxxx; newren@xxxxxxxxx; rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > annulen@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pull: warn if the user didn't say whether to rebase or to > merge > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:16:01PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > To > > > avoid that situation, Git should require users to explicitly specify > > > whether their primary workflow is a contributor/rebasing workflow or > > > a maintainer/merging workflow. > > > > There is nothing Git "should" do. There are things we wish Git did, > > and we give orders to the codebase to do so in our proposed log > > message. Perhaps like: > > I'd also note that there are some workflows that assume that --rebase is > *never* a good thing, even for contributors. We can decide whether we > want to bias the git man page in favor of one workflow as opposed to > another, for the sake of new git users, but I don't think it's accurate to say > (or even imply) that there are only two workflows: > contributor/rebasing and maintainer/merging. I second this sentiment. The repositories my community (outside my company) has are typically large (3-5Gb of sources) with 10K-100K individual files. They all use a */merging paradigm. Randall
